Template talk:Arab Spring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Arab world (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

change

I propose the following change:

Schizodelight (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You should put that into the Template:2010–2011 Arab world protests/sandbox. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Other editors took those out, but I think they should be put back in, because they are just split articles from the Egypt protests, so they clearly have to do with this template. SilverserenC 05:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt's Domestic/International responses can be accessed through the main article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that, per templates like this, more than ten secondary and tertiary articles, ones that were split from this article, should be gotten rid of because they are just articles that were split. However, clearly that is not how we do things. All pages that are related to the main subject, including pages split from the articles in it, are supposed to be linked to. SilverserenC 18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Split off Egypt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{split|part=yes|Template:2011 Egyptian protests}}

The Egyptian protests are garnering multiple articles, so it should be split off into a separate template from this one. The Egyptian related subjects would be moved off to the new template, leaving only the main Egypt protest article on this template.

Considering the number of notable peopel connected to these protests, the nav template should be separated to provide better division between Egyptian and other Arab protests, and show what is clearly Egyptian topics.

184.144.161.207 (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Return the template to utilizing the style shown in this version. That would allow us to add the extra articles without any confusion in the template. SilverserenC 07:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

oppose the split. (agree with SS) We already have an egypt revolutioon/protest template, and this is not big enough for egypt yet. it all fits in well here (some templates are HUGE, thi is manageable)
id either support SS or just add another section for "ther pages"(Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)).
Opppose. Let's just make our own separate template. It's a big enough deal to have one. Ocaasi (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
A template with only three to four articles seems kind of unnecessary. Sure, there are such templates out there, but they likely don't have an obvious, overarching template to add to like this does and is. SilverserenC 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
See (and improve) Template:2011 Egyptian protests Ocaasi (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Groupings

I like the idea of having a template for the entire region's protests, but it seems too un-differentiated to have the people and political groups mashed together. I think if there are enough sub-articles for this template to make sense, than we have to break out the people/party sections by country in some way. Ocaasi (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just adding more and was thinking the asme. id support some sort of organisation though thin this overarching templat.Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, we need to do something about this, but I'm not too familiar with template code. Just lumping all of these people and all of the parties together doesn't make sense and can't help readers. Would it make sense to just start with bold country breakouts, without altering the main structure, just so we can group the items? Ocaasi (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
that would be kay, but would it get too big?
Aklso can we create colu,ns in a template?
or see belowLihaas (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Columns would be okay too, though I don't know how to do it. Also, what is the point of having all of these details? Why not just link to the relevant country Protest page and leave it at that. People can find all of the links they want at the specific articles. Ocaasi (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
well, its the main point of the template really. quick-access to related subjects. i think when we reorg the template it may clear this up,.
so i propse we keep the current incarnation of the left side, and then add a top column for the countries, with the related matter below. how does that sound? or should it be vice versa?--Lihaas (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then we need columns. And either way we do it it's going to be enormous. But I think we have to try with countries on top not the side. Either way I think this is a fool's errand. 10 countries times 3 arbitrary leaders times 3 arbitraries parties is 90 links! and it's growing daily and that would exclude several significant individuals and groups from each one. That's not a template, it's a mess, imo. We are better off having coherent template for the region (this one) and then sub-templates for each country. But I keep repeating myself. If others disagree, fix this template, cause as of now, it's not doing anyone good. I don't have a clue how to format columns, so I can't really get into it at the moment. Ocaasi (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Grouping proposal

The template is so messy. How about the following geographical grouping of the Arab world:

  • The Levant: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Iraq.
  • Arabia: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.
  • Nile Valley: Egypt and Sudan.
  • Maghreb: Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara and Mauritania.
  • Horn of Africa: Djibouti, Somalia and Eritrea.

82.137.200.10 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's well considered, although most people don't recognize those geographical terms, and it still won't solve our too many details without categorization problem. Not sure that's the right fix, although it's a good idea. Ocaasi (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead and just grouped the protests into major (with its own WP article) and minor (just a section in the main article). D'accord? —Nightstallion 14:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran

I note that Iran has been removed from the template today. It is well known that Iran is not 'Arab' but the protests in Iran are clearly very highly connected to those which are occuring in Arab countries in the region (the 2010–2011 Arab world protests article already contains two paragraphs on the Iran protests), and to completely exclude Iran from this template is in my view the wrong approach.

I propose that either:

(1) a 'See also' section be added to the template, with a link to the Iran protests included there; or (2) a 'Concurrent protests outside the Arab world' section be added, with Iran included there.

Rangoon11 (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer (2); we should then also include the other protests listed in the main article. —Nightstallion 14:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Whatever it ends up being called, the Iran protest article belongs in the template. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I added it for now as 'Related'. Continue to discuss final concensus on what to all it if you like, but leave for now. Flatterworld (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Major v. Minor

I thought about merging the two groups, as "Major" and "Minor" are subjective terms, but as I noticed a difference between the two groups was that the "Major" ones had their own articles while the "Minor"'s were sections in the main article, I thought that there might be some sort of distinction. If they are separated, though, it has to be by actual criteria beyond wiki notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How about having two sub sections: 'Government overthrown' and 'Ongoing'? 'Major' and 'Minor', especially with fast-moving and controversial events like these, could be very difficult to pin down. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See also

I removed Iranian link in this template: The reason is 1. Iranian are struggling for democracy (according to all major independent sources), 2. Arab world does not seem to be asking for that (apart from Aljazeera's claim), 3. The link between these two things are wp:or. Major sources do distinguish cases . And I think even collecting all the arab countries in one path is highly disputed (Tunisia differes greatly from Egypt and that from yeman and that from Jordan). I am concerend about aljazeera-ization of curent event in the middle east. This is, for freedon fighters in the middle east, very counter productive. Believe me. Xashaiar (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know why everything is reverted. Please discuss the matters before reverting. I am not going to engage in revert game. Xashaiar (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Firstly whether or not you are genuniely pro or anti the protests is impossible for other editors to establish, and is in any case completely irrelevant. The Iranian protests are very closely connected with the protests in adjacent countries, and a massive number of citations could be quoted to demonstrate this if needed. To exclude the Iranian protests from this template would in my view be no less than censorship.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do concentrate on this issue. The point is that Iran's movement is not related to Egypt's movement. I am arguing: do not do wp:or. Xashaiar (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
A quick Google search reveals thousands of articles similar to this: [1] There is absolutely no need for any original research.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do concentrate on the issue. If you believe in what you said then change the title of this template to something else. For example "2009-2011 protests in non-democratic countries" or similar things.. Then Iran HAS to be included by every means. Xashaiar (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I tend to agree with you that the title of the template should now be changed to avoid discussions like this re-occuring and wasting time. There can be no doubt that the events in Iran and Egypt are as closely connected as the events in Egypt and, say, Yemen, and the title of the template is unhelpful in forcing non-Arab countries into a 'See also' or 'Related topics' section.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Now we need a new title. The point that "people are fighting against non-democratic issues in their countries and this is common between all these countries" is not disputed. We just need to put them under properly named flag. Xashaiar (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Could we consider "2009-2011 protests in the Middle east"? 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer something less geographically specific, such as 2010-2011 pro-democracy protests, which will completely avoid these issues.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Besides, not all involved countries are in the Middle East. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Maybe yourself do the renaming? Xashaiar (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted my reason for updating the template under the 'Iran' section. Please do NOT split the same discussion into other sections, such as this one. This is very confusing. Flatterworld (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of Templates

note: there is a WP:3RR thread related to this dispute here. Do not remove this message. It is common practice to notify involved parties of disputes related to their editing. Ocaasi (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We use the most 'common' name for articles, to help the general public find what they're looking for. Same for what's included in a Template. If people expect to find a link to the Iranian protests article, then that's what we should provide. It's not Arab, which is why it's listed under 'Related'. Any article or template about an ongoing situation is expected to be fluid. There will be plenty of time to rearrange and rename after the dust has settled. This is not that time. We don't know where this is going, or where other protests may happen. Perhaps '2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests' may be a better title. Perhaps not. Flatterworld (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree a change of title from "2010–2011 Arab world protests" to "2009-2011 Pro-democracy protests" (maybe even better is "2009-2011 Pro-democratic movements"?). Xashaiar (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Minor point - it should be a lower-case 'p'. Otherwise I would be happy with the change. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, please yourself do the change you find best. Xashaiar (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
We also need to stay in sync with the title of the related article to avoid confusion. See Talk:2010-2011 Arab world protests#Renaming of article proposal and some following sections. Flatterworld (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The title of the related article is now changing every few seconds(!) so I think we should wait until there's consensus over there. I'm glad everyone's so interested in the topic. Whatever it is. ;-) Most importantly, many, many, many thanks to those who worked on this template. Whatever it ends up being called, it's very helpful. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
As long as this template is titled 2010–2011 Arab world protests, Iran has no place here. Iran is not an Arab country. The Iranian protests started long before the Arab uprisings. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Iran is not an Arab country to be listed in this template. Also the Iranian protests started in 2009. Please stop adding Iranian protests to this template. --Wayiran (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That Iran is not an Arab country is the reason it belongs in the "Related" group, and not the primary group with the Arab countries themselves. Though protests began in 2009, the current incantation is a result of the successful protests in Egypt. Therefore, the Iran article belongs in the template, and as we continue to discuss the name of the main article, something more inclusive will eventually be agreed upon. Until then, we keep it as is. Attempts to remove the article for the template are hindering the project by limiting connectivity of related articles. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Wording it as "related to" does not justify inclusion. Yes, do as you preach, and stop trying to force Iran into this template, until an inclusive resolution has been agreed upon. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say we have it, given all the times others reverted your removal of it yesterday. We'll reaffirm it today if we need to. There is nothing unjustified about this. It's important to note that those 2009-10 protests you talk about ended, and these started up after Mubarak stepped down. While these are clearly related to the 2009-10 protests, they're also related to the Arab world protests. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The word related to/see also does justify inclusion. The protests are related by their common populist roots, anti-authoritarian direction, use of social media, cooperation between factions, etc. Here are a few sources that relate them directly:

  • [2] NYTimes: Iran Uses Force Against Protests as Region Erupts
  • [3] Haaretz: Protests wash over Iran, Bahrain and Yemen, inspired by Arab world unrest
  • [4] Guardian: Protests in Iran, Yemen and Bahrain - in pictures: Pro and anti-government protesters take to the streets in the Arab states
  • [5] Council on Foreign Relations: How Iran Sees Egypt's Protests
  • [6] Manilla Bulletin Broadcasting Publication: Pro-democracy wave rocks Arab world (DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) – The possible heirs of Egypt's uprising took to the streets Monday in different corners of the Middle East: Iran's beleaguered opposition stormed back to central Tehran and came under a tear gas attack by police).

In short, there's no reason to exclude a related or see also link to these protests, which are clearly related by major news organizations. Linking to them does not make Iran 'part of the Arab world', it just accurately reflects that the 'current' Iranian protests are being linked and discussed in relation to the Arab world protests. Those protests may be about Muslims overthrowing their secular governments, or they may be about people looking for democracy. Either way, they're related, and continuing to maintain that they are not seems like obstruction based on a personal opinion. Please reconsider. Ocaasi (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the main article discussion, separating Persians and Arab - and Kurds! - reminds me of Jim Crow laws, perhaps apartheid. It's absurd, imo. All the news media I can find are grouping them. It's only in Wikipedia that's there's this sense of 'ownership', exclusion and denial. It is what it is, whether or not the current title of the article and template are as accurate as they could be. Ocaasi, I would add BBC News: Middle East protests, country by country Flatterworld (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good link, too. Of course, what it really shows is that we should be using Middle East in the title. Ocaasi (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A template like this should only serve as a navigation tool, to navigate between the different protests in the Arab world. "Related" etc has no business here, this is not an article, it's a navigation template. The title is "2010–2011 Arab world protests ", that means the pages it should cover are about ARAB countries. As long as the title has not been changed, Iran has no place on this template. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That argument doesn't make sense for two reasons. For one, templates with related content are navigational. Two, the Iran protests are mentioned in the Arab World Protests article already. Your continuing to push a semantic point in light of several editors who disagree with you as well as several sources that support its inclusion, is really not helpful. Until we figure out what the best name for the various protests are, and how to manage them, consider a mere 'related' mention a compromise. Ocaasi (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The Iran protests are mentioned in a section clearly titled PROTESTS OUTSIDE ARAB WORLD along with a dozen other protests. Iran has no business on this page, this is a navigation page. Either change the title, or Iran will be removed. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear that the argument about the inclusion or exclusion of the Iran article is based on semantics. This is unfortunate. We can change the names of articles to whatever we agree upon, but that doesn't change the fact that the Iran protests are related to the other North Africa/Middle East/Arab world/Pro-democracy/Anti-dictator/Whatever the hell they are protests. Let's please move past semantics. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you guys even know what WP:consensus means? I can count three editors here, who are saying Iran does not belong on this page. What on earth make you think you have a consensus, when so many editors oppose your rationals for inclusion? Kurdo777 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the page

I don't think we MUST follow 2010–2011 Arab world protests title for this template, there are no rules that say so. These are two separate pages. So I propose that we take the initiative ourselves, and rename this template to 2010–2011 Protests in the Middle East or 2010-2011 Middle East Protests, per BBC.[7] Kurdo777 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator Kurdo777 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Discussion is already underway at the 2010-2011 Arab world protests article. If you want to discuss a name change, then go vote over there. Don't try and circumvent process by making a discussion here on a template page that must defer to the article page in all things. SilverserenC 23:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Who says "the template page that must defer to the article page in all things". Nowhere in Wikipedia policies or rules, there is a clause about template pages deferring to article pages. Templates are independent entities. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I do agree that this template should be renamed, but I don't agree that it should be done ahead of the main article. I also don't agree with suggestions that include "Middle East" and no other geographic area, because of the number of North African countries involved. The problem remains that no one title has emerged. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    And while we have no one title, it makes sense to be flexible in the template. Ocaasi (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a reasonable name-change idea, but the purpose for doing so--to avoid a semantic issue that doesn't exist because 'related' is supported by semantics and sources--is not a good idea. The template should match the article to which it corresponds, and the article should change first. Also, the protests are related, so worrying about this is not just irrelevant, it's actually wrong. Ocaasi (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Once again, "related" does not change the fact that Iran is not an Arab country, and hence does not belong here. This is not a minor issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Kurdo, I'm not sure how to see these objections in light of your reasoning. Objecting "Does not belong here" when there is both a 'related' tag as well as numerous sources supporting the relation, regardless of the main article's title, makes me think you may have a POV which is preventing you from considering other perspectives here. Is it possible you are letting something along those lines motivate your inflexibility here? Ocaasi (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all reasons stated above, and over the past few days. Flatterworld (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

formatting

{{editprotected}} Instead of using a softbreak between countries, the template should return to having a softbreak between items, say using {{-w}} , and each country should be started with a linebreak <br/> instead of {{.w}} to clearly separate countries by line in each section, making the appearance cleaner. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the Template will then look messy and will be no easier to navigate. If we were to go down that route we should then have proper horizontal groups for each country. The Template will then effectively become organised by country rather than topic however, which I think could be problematic in terms of preventing bloat. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I appended {{–w}} to Omar Suleiman's name to make sure that there is some wrapping in the template to accommodate use even in a 1024x768-size monitor.
Comment: Use in smaller monitors is my primary concern, because if there's little wrapping in the template, then it will create a horizontal scrollbar and small monitors of advanced Internet-enabled devices might not show the right side of the template, because it would extend outside the browser viewport. I support adding softbreaks between all items, since countries are visually already separated, as they're in boldface. I actually wanted to propose a question as to whether softbreaks should be added between all items, in a manner where only names would not wrap. -Mardus (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Change proposal (navbox subgroup)

Hello, I've considered changing this template to a navboxsubgroup. We can group articles according to their countries. If an arab protest has more than 3 articles for instance (we can talk about the minimum number or the importance of the protests), then we create a new group for such country. What do you think? Here's something I've tried:

--Schizodelight (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The problems with the above are in my view three-fold. Firstly, it treats Egypt and Tunisia wholly differently from other countries, which is confusing. Secondly, it becomes overly duplicative of the separate Egypt and Tunisia templates. Although in theory this template could simply replace those separate templates with a single one there is then a third problem, which is that as events in other countries develop they too will need to be treated in the same way as Egypt and Tunisia and the template will explode in size. There are ways of dealing with this, such as collapsible groups, but we could end up with a very large number of them.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the template, although a nice mock-up, is just going to get way too large. I'm not sure that anything is needed in the template besides links to the specific country's protest/revolution articles. That said, the current version is a decent compromise. Ocaasi (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we can remove thje top row and then add the countries on the first column with the people and parties liked (the countries links goes tot he protest page). and that should make it small and near. (or the countries on the top and people ad parties on the left (which would be even more neat)Lihaas (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Bahrain Grand Prix

2011 Bahrain Grand Prix is missing from the template. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Zbase4 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

its marginally related, teh grand prix istelf has nothing to do with the protests.(Lihaas (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
The Grand Prix itself has nothing to do with the protests, but the cancellation of the Grand Prix is directly related. As such, it should be on the template. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been removed again. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

protest locations

Should the more spectacular protest locations be added to the template? Tahrir Square, Pearl Square, etc. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

add green square libya and whereever they are in yemen. also the trains tation in alexandria.
need a new location though(Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
Gdeim Izik camp in W. Sahara?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Sahrawi protests

Because of the protests in Western Sahara - 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests - shouldn't Western Sahara be added to this infobox? Vis-a-visconti (talk)

It was, but someone erased it. I had added it again. Hope this wouldnt be another edit war.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu had erased W. Sahara from the infobox, without giving explanations, without consensus and starting edit-warring. I would take the issue to the Administrator's noticeboard.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

All the discussions are going on in the main article. TL565 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have re-added Western Sahara, as editors on the main page seem to have agreed it should be included. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin

Excuse my english, I'm French.

What about links between Wisconsin protests and Middle East and North Africa protests ? Are there contestings about this link? Some frenchs contributors, not implicated in editing process of articles on the subject, cannot believe in a relationship between. Archie (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable people

How about changing the link to the country (in this section of the template) to point to the relevant category such as [[Category:People of the 2011 Syrian protests]] ? Also change the 'Notable people' to link to [[Category:People of the 2010–2011 Arab world protests]] (which should probably have its name changed to match this template). Flatterworld (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we call it the "Arab Spring" in the navbox header?

It would be per WP:COMMONNAME. -- 92.4.109.186 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

no consensus on this. its not widely used, its a media concoction and limited to geographiv distribution of reportingLihaas (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The main article is called Arab Spring. It makes no sense to use the old name for this infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You dont move it without consensus and unilateral. if it makes no sense then get others to support the stateme.t
I dontknow what dodgy reasons that was for but Iran and israel are NOT Arab majority.Lihaas (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Consensus was established for the main article; it would be superfluous to have to reestablish consensus for its supporting template. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. your whim is not going to change it even it was BOLD and then challenged get BRD.Lihaas (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, come off it. This is not an article, so that hardly applies. This is the directly supporting template to the Arab Spring article, thus it is only logical that this template should have the same name as the article is. "Media concoction" = WP:RS consensus. There is no reason whatsoever to retain the awkward, cobbled-together name "2011 Middle East and North African Protests". It's exactly like insisting that WWI be turned into "1914-1918 European, African, Asian and Oceanian War". This is not a "whim", this is a desire not to have confusing name inconsistencies that look unencyclopaedic and unprofessional willy-nilly about the Wiki. Not to mention a desire to follow the clear cut consensus on the talk page of the main article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Template Rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No need for a separate RM if there was consensus for the main article to move. Number 57 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of the latest move of the main page, this template should be renamed ASAP! 69.31.108.43 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Get a discussion and consenussLihaas (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussions are not needed for every single move. They are only needed if it is potentially controversial. The controversy was settled on the main article's talk page. It is 100% useless to launch another move request here, as the result is already determined. Template names follow the same rules as page names. One of the key criteria for titles is consistency. This title is inconsistent with other titles, so it should be moved. Blocking this move is bordering on disruptive now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
They are when challegned per BRD and WP:Consensus can cahangeand WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTSLihaas (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Taken to AN/I. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


template rendered very wide

As of 22:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC), the rendering of this template is extremely wide in my browser: lines do not fold when i make my browser window narrower. Is this deliberate? What is/are the argument(s) for this?

If not, maybe someone could try to fix it before i try to understand it - it's probably obvious looking at the source, but i haven't (yet) tried. This old version folds nicely. Boud (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The problem was the mixing of the "hlist" style allowing (newline)* blabla elements of lists along with the {{DOTw}} where DOT is a non-ascii symbol. Even after that, the old version put lots of empty space above and below the collage (image), and the individual photos were so shrunk that it's difficult to see anything in them. By putting the images in a single column, there's no longer any wasted space (in my browser, but this will still vary as a function of browser settings, font amplification, etc.), and the crowds look a bit more like crowds than blurs. i hope other people are happy with this. If not, wiki, wiki, wiki. :). Boud (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2x3 collage vs 1x6 collage?

Just for the record, the 180px single-column, vertically-long image was reverted to the old 220px double-column, vertically-short image. My guess is that what looks best depends on browser-to-font ratio:

  • high browser-to-font ratio, meaning either a small font (compared to browser size), or a wide browser or a high-resolution screen (compared to the font size)
    • gives a rather small number of lines of text, so a double-column vertically-short image looks OK, while a single-column vertically-long image forces extra blank space above and below some of the lines in some of the sub-boxes (lists), so doesn't look so good
  • low browser-to-font ratio, meaning either a big font (compared to browser size), or a narrow browser or a low-resolution screen (compared to the font size)
    • gives a rather big number of lines of text, so a double-column vertically-short image leaves a huge amount of blank space above and below the image looking horrible, but a single-column vertically-long image looks good.

IMHO my font is not so big, my browser is not so narrow, and my resolution is not so low, but i fall into the second case - "low browser-to-font ratio". The events by country, groups, impact, and international reactions sections of the template all have the right-hand roughly 25% of the template as blank space above (events, groups) or below (impact, int reactions) the image.

Maybe someone can find in WP:MOS or somewhere similar what sort of browser settings we should consider to be "typical"? Or maybe there's another solution which will not end up satisfying some Wikipedia online readers while giving too much white space for others? Something like <gallery> [[File:Tunisiaimage.png]] ... </gallery>? Boud (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

UAE Five

I've been bold and added a new article about the UAE Five to this template, but it won't hurt my feelings if it ends up removed. The UAE Five were probably the highest-profile Arab Spring incident in the UAE, but that being said, the Arab Spring seems to have had far less impact there than elsewhere. Let me know what you think. Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely think the inclusion is appropriate. Good add. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing Khuzestan from the list of countries

I just deleted Khuzestan from the list of countries, simply because it is NOT a country. It's only a state in Iran. By the way, those mentioned events took place only in some parts of that state, not all of it. Therefore mentioning it for the whole country is a mistake.

Another reason is that the events in 2011 were just to mark an anniversary for the events in 2005, which has happened years before the Arab Spring. It was not even an impact, perhaps just a response to show correlation. In fact 08:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No need to mention that Iran is NOT an Arab country. In fact 08:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)







Creative Commons License